The Foreign Service Journal, March 2008

department’s choice to make mar- riage the fulcrum on which training, protections and benefits are bestow- ed thus discriminates against a group of employees who have no recourse, yet whose service commitments are identical in every way to those of their straight colleagues. Real Impact Consider the real impact of the department’s outdated MOH policy. Security. Partners aren’t offered the protections that diplomatic pass- ports afford. They aren’t guaranteed access to embassy medical facilities, even in places where State’s own medical professionals consider local facilities inadequate. Under current rules, Members of Household would not be given Tamiflu in an avian flu outbreak, thereby inviting vulner- ability into our households. And in places where dangers and uncer- tainty are facts of life, the govern- ment offers gay and lesbian employ- ees no assurance that their families, too, will be evacuated in hostile situations or imminent danger. Effectiveness. Partners of am- bassadors and deputy chiefs of mission aren’t allowed to sit in other- wise vacant Foreign Service Institute seats to learn the informal com- munity leadership roles expected of them — a deficit that’s detrimental not only to them and to us, but to the communities they’re expected to serve. Partners aren’t taught the lan- guage and culture of the country in which they, as much as spouses, will cast impressions of America through their daily interactions. Without spouse-equivalent priority for post employment, partners can’t compete fairly for jobs for which they may be ideally qualified — depriving mis- sions of the talent match they should be seeking. Service equity. When gay and lesbian employees answer the call to duty in Iraq and elsewhere, their partners don’t receive the separate maintenance allowances that spouses receive. Are our service and our families’ sacrifices of lesser value? Although State now generously reim- burses the transportation of pets to and from post, gay and lesbian employees’ partners must pay their own way — a telling suggestion that the department values domesticated animals more than it does our family members. Similarly, visa support for partners is not offered. As ambassador to Romania, I was interrogated by a Republican Hill staffer as to whether my partner’s socks and underwear were carried to post in my household effects ship- ment or his luggage. And this was in the days after 9/11, when my focus needed to be on our nation’s security needs. Should anyone have to endure such demeaning treatment? Diversity. Although Sec. Rice and other senior department leaders say they value diversity, their inat- tention to these matters renders that claim hollow at best. No one, of course, would suggest that the dis- criminatory workplace policies I’ve described compare even remotely in scope or magnitude to the discrim- ination that she so often recounts having witnessed in Birmingham, Ala., as a child. But these policies nonetheless are discriminatory — and all the more so because the only remedy offered (marriage) is not available to gay and lesbian employ- ees. Why is discrimination, in any form or degree, tolerated in the institution that this Secretary leads? A Leadership Deficit Those who lead our public in- stitutions are accountable for addres- sing problems that impede the safety, effectiveness and morale of their organizations. If they truly care about keeping talent, they should want to catch up with America’s private sec- tor, which is so far ahead of the federal government in these matters. For three years, a succession of senior State Department “leaders” have told me that I’m absolutely right to call for revisions to MOH policy, but that the issues are complex. Recently, they’ve taken to pointing out that the department doesn’t dis- criminate in hiring and promotions. What a clever dodge! That’s never, in fact, been charged. Rather, it’s State’s discriminatory treatment of a group of employees that’s at issue, as rights and protections are being accorded to families on the basis of a criterion that gay and lesbian employees can in no way meet. As the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D- Calif., chairman of the House For- eign Affairs Committee, said on Dec. 19, 2007, with specific reference to the Foreign Service: “There is no rational explanation for a same-sex domestic partner to be treated as a second-class citizen. … These dedica- ted men and women serve their country, yet our government does not honor the basic rights of the benefits they have earned for themselves and their families.” The State Department’s failure to address these issues reflects, quite 16 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A R C H 2 0 0 8 S P E A K I N G O U T Why is discrimination, in any form or degree, tolerated in the institution that this Secretary of State leads?